What is the definition of a battle rifle?

I went shooting with one of my girlfriends and her husband who came back from the Middle East. I brought my AR rifle and he went on this tangent about the effectiveness on the ammo it uses and bluntly told me that I should sell my AR for a “real” rifle because the 223/556 is mainly a personal defense round and not a true battle round. So what would be a true battle rifle?

If you enjoyed reading about "What is the definition of a battle rifle?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!

DeepSouth

July 12, 2010, 10:31 AM

It would be rifle that is used in battle, I guess. The AR15 is the civilian version of the primary rifle our Military uses, I don't know how much more "battle" you can get than that, without joining the Military. Makes me wonder what he had when in the Middle East.

You could have just told him a personal defense round was fine, because you weren't planning on going into battle.

DustyVermonter

July 12, 2010, 10:52 AM

The term battle rifle is defined as a rifle that shoots full power amunition such as the M14,M1 Garand,H&KG3,FN-FAL. When I think of the term battle rifle I associate it with the M1 garand and the M14, full power ammunition would be 7.62x51nato(.308) and 7.62x63(30-06) and 7.62x54r and so on. Do a Wiki-search as they have a pretty good definition of the term. Also do a wiki-search of the M14 and they have soething in there saying that the M14 was the last "so called battle rifle" made. In my eyes there is a difference between an assault rifle and a battle rifle but I'm sure this subject is debatable.

Tirod

July 12, 2010, 11:18 AM

"Battle rifle" has been that class of .30 cal and bigger semi auto rifles in general military use before the adoption of the intermediate calibers. They started as bolt actions, moved into semi auto, became refined with magazine feed, and eventually gained pistol grips in a wayward attempt to merge assault rifles with high powered calibers.

In a timeline sense, from Mauser 98k, Enfield, and Springfield, thru Garand and G43, to the FNFAL, HK, and M14. The entire class of weapons was dumped - cancelled - killed off - superceded - and made obsolete by the assault rifle. Real soldiers carry intermediate caliber burst/full auto lightweight weapons with almost double the ammo and inclination to shoot it. A few specialty positions tote the longer, heavier, bulkier, harder to shoot battle rifles, carrying much less ammo and suffering tactical restrictions where long ranges don't present themselves. They are Squad Designated Marksmen (not snipers.)

Since 90% of soldiers carrying a rifle use a "Poodle Death-Ray Weapon," not a "battle rifle," I have to wonder what logistics and support unit in the Green Zone he served with, as the combat troops are traditionally outnumbered 10 to 1 in the force structure.

I would expect the next gem of information to be how he threw down his jammomatic M4 and grabbed an AK every chance he got . . . :evil:

Art Eatman

July 12, 2010, 12:07 PM

"In a timeline sense, from Mauser 98k, Enfield, and Springfield, thru Garand and G43, to the FNFAL, HK, and M14."

Yup. That's pretty much all in the past, nowadays. "Battle rifle" as based on cartridge capability is sorta out-the-window.

Used to be, generalized infantry had battle rifles, backed up by artillery. Tuned-up battle rifles were used by a relatively few, as snipers. Relatively few full-auto weapons.

That's changed. Changed a bunch. In the classic sense there's not really such a thing as a battle rifle. Some militaries use the FAL; others, mostly the AK or some variant of the M16. More sniper rifles, in several cartridge configurations. Lots of full-auto in intermediate-sized cartridges as well as full-sized. And a squad can have some sort of "all of the above" mix.

Really, IMO, comparing a .223 and a .308 is pointless without comparing the intended use.

Quentin

July 12, 2010, 03:01 PM

The definition of "battle rifle" has been addressed very well above. If you need a heavy rifle with a heavy bullet that can hit hard way out to 600+ meters then maybe a battle rifle is for you. If you're like many of us, the advantages of the smaller 5.56 make more sense.

As far as this guy's behavior, it does happen - people fall in love with one thing or drink the kool-aid then preach to everyone else that anything else is junk. And no doubt a little MCP (male chauvinist pig) was involved as well. IE: "how could Miss Debbie know more than I do about rifles, after all I'm a guy and she..." (Something to that effect) :D

Don't worry, you made a good choice with the AR and as long as you like it, who cares what he thinks. That's what really matters, use what YOU like and ignore criticism that is not constructive.

happygeek

July 12, 2010, 03:32 PM

The last time I was in a library (about 4 months ago) I tried to find a definition in Janes. They seem to use the term for any standard issue infantry rifle. Wikipedia will tell you it's a military rifle firing a full size rifle round, as opposed to an intermediate round like the 5.56 NATO or 5.45x39mm, but that could have just been written by an AR hater like the person the OP mentioned.

Personally, I like to use the term the way Wikipedia does to differentiate between battle rifles and assault rifles, but that's just me. I don't think there is really any official definition of the battle rifle term.

claiborne

July 12, 2010, 03:41 PM

M1 Garand = battle rifle
BAR = battle rifle
M-14 = battle rifle
Ar-15 = one of most adaptive, effective and economical rifles in existance for having all-day fun, blasting stuff, self defense and going on the warpath after varmints and bad guys. It is the perfect auto-loading rifle for smaller people and bigger people that do not like packing lots of weight or extra recoil.

Hatterasguy

July 12, 2010, 03:42 PM

The latest would be the FN SCAR heavy.

gb0399

July 12, 2010, 03:51 PM

From my experience, anyone who comes up to you and wants to talk about how they have "been in the s**t", has no idea about the "s**t"

and if they want to talk about what rounds are good at killing people, they have probably never killed anyone.

The guys that have truely "been there and done that" don't bring up those issues with ladies they meet on the range. Those stories are reserved for late night benders with other guys that were there with you.

hammerklavier

July 12, 2010, 03:55 PM

It's a rifle you take into battle. Not to be confused with a battle carbine, which is probably what you would have (if you took it into battle).

C-grunt

July 12, 2010, 04:13 PM

From my experience, anyone who comes up to you and wants to talk about how they have "been in the s**t", has no idea about the "s**t"

and if they want to talk about what rounds are good at killing people, they have probably never killed anyone.

The guys that have truely "been there and done that" don't bring up those issues with ladies they meet on the range. Those stories are reserved for late night benders with other guys that were there with you.
+10

I have had a few people tell me the 5.56/.223 is an ineffective round. When asked how it failed them in combat, they tell me how a brother of a coworkers cousin hates it and he is in "Spec Ops".

Miss Debbie. Your AR15 is a fine rifle for defending yourself or even battle. The 5.56 is a very deadly round and will most likely work if shot placement is good.

There are no absolutes in combat, so be prepared for things to happen that you dont think will.

happygeek

July 12, 2010, 04:33 PM

I have had a few people tell me the 5.56/.223 is an ineffective round. When asked how it failed them in combat, they tell me how a brother of a coworkers cousin hates it and he is in "Spec Ops".

The funny thing about that is, I have yet to hear anyone who is a member of the SOF community call themselves "Spec Ops".

dom1104

July 12, 2010, 04:36 PM

A Battle Rifle is a rifle that you cannot afford to practice with. :)

C-grunt

July 12, 2010, 04:42 PM

the funny thing about that is, i have yet to hear anyone who is a member of the sof community call themselves "spec ops".
exactly!!!

Rexster

July 13, 2010, 07:16 PM

"Battle rifle" is a relative term, that means what the the speaker/writer wants it to mean. "Main battle rifle" is a more precise term, referring to rifles using cartridges that were used in the era when men with such rifles won major battles on their own, using long-range rifle fire. The Anglo-Boer Wars to early WWI would be such an era, with some such battles extending into the mid-20th Century. Today, heavy weapons do most of the the heavy lifting. A main battle rifle still has its place in Iraq and Afghanistan, but not in the hands of every soldier.

Those folks who complain about the performance of .223/5.56 are basing their complaints on the use of Hague Convention-compliant ammo, that the military is usually compelled to use. We civilians can use JSP ammo that causes tremendous damage, especially at the short range typical of civilian self-defense. Such ammo is not all that good at drilling through vehicles, compared to typical main battle rifle cartridges, but it is generally very good for private citizen defensive needs.

While I do like having a rifle that uses MBR-class ammo, I don't consider it very good for go-to defensive purposes unless I am in a rural area.

husker

July 13, 2010, 07:44 PM

something i can BASH YOUR SKULL IN works for me

Hatterasguy

July 13, 2010, 08:47 PM

Thats why I love the Mosin, if I run out of ammo its one heck of a war club.:D

Maverick223

July 13, 2010, 09:08 PM

The term "battle rifle" has been well defined above, as well as in the past. Moving on to the important stuff...Do you like your AR? If you answered "yes" to this question, carry on and disregard the foolish comments by said friend's husband. Was he in the Marine Corp.?...that would explain a few things. :p If he continues to harass you about it (assuming you go shooting with him again), just kindly tell him "thank you for your service, but I like my rifle, it is good enough for me so I think i'll keep it"...if that doesn't work, resort to jarhead jokes. :evil:

Joe Demko

July 13, 2010, 09:36 PM

"Battle rifle" is a hobbyist's term having its origins with some gunwriter or another; many credit Chuck Taylor with coining the term. Unless things have changed since the last time this came up, no military uses the term. When I wore green, we were all issued plain old rifles...which we could also refer to as an M-16A1 or a weapon without getting screamed at over it.
As a hobbyist's term, it has some limited usefulness.

Maverick223

July 13, 2010, 10:15 PM

...many credit Chuck Taylor with coining the term....and I thought the only thing he came up with was a comfortable pair of shoes. :p

Art Eatman

July 13, 2010, 10:46 PM

Googling for "Patton + Garand", the top of the list was this cite: "George S. Patton, Jr. proclaimed it, "the greatest single battle implement ever devised by man." That would have been around 1945.

Rifle, implement, does it really matter?

Maverick223

July 13, 2010, 10:58 PM

Rifle, implement, does it really matter?Dunno...It might. Perhaps he had a taste for the spirits, and the rifle could be broken down and made into a emergency resupply liquor still. ;)

A Battle Rifle is the rifle the majority of troops carry into battle, for 50+ yrs that has been the M16 and now the M4. It is not perfect and has certain limitations. The military has been searching for the "Perfect" 5.56/.224 bullet for some time...we keep hearing about the next "Miracle Bullet" that is going to make the 5.56 as good as or better than the 7.62. Scientifically, that would violate all the rules of physics.

As you can see from the charts above, the 7.62 is three times better at 500 yds than the 5.56. Does that mean every soldier needs to carry an M14 or similar size rifle? No? And the military is no going to go back, because of many factors we have discussed...mostly money. Nobody wants to drop that cash when 90% of the troops are happy with the 5.56.

The main problem as I see it is the 5.56's maximum effective range is realistically about 300 yds. I love my AR and I have shot it out to 600 yds and hit paper, but it probably has less power at that range than a .38. Very few people think the .38 is a good combat round.

House to house in Iraq, the M4 was well received. The short-barrel rifle is a lot better at clearing houses than a full-sized 7.62, and there is less chance over-penetration with the 5.56 through flimsy walls...where civilians may be hiding. The 7.62 will shoot through vehicles, walls and people.

Moving into Afghanistan...the insurgents have moved from house to house fights out into the fields and mountains. They learned against the Russians, in another 10 year war (the Russians gave up and quit) to hide in the hills and snipe. A recent video showed a platoon tied down and hiding from a single sniper that was shooting from beyond the maximum capability of the M4's. In a situation like that, all the troops can do is call in for back up! Which resulted in a missile strike that killed helpless civilians. Would a few 7.62's have helped in that situation..in my opinion - yes! Oh, well.

The good news seems to be that the military is sending more 7.62's into the battle zone. And it appears that the upper brass has given in and admitted that different battle zones require different tools (Rifles). You can not win a war without good, well supplied soldiers. We have the best in the world! Let's all work together to keep them the best equipped force in the world.

The predator drones are a nice gimmick, 50 cal sniper rifles have their place, but nothing takes the place of the men on the ground, occupying territory and bringing peace. The Russians put over 100,000 troops in country. They got their butts kicked, and reportedly lost more men than the 50,000+ we lost in Viet Nam. We have lost 5,000 in Afghanistan in 10 years...we lost more in some months in Viet Nam...and for what? The politicians changed their mind and decided to quit after spilling all our precious blood. It may happen again!

I keep asking this question...we are invading the Afghan's homeland, have driven out one government and set up our own, do we wonder why they hate us? What will we have to do to convince their leaders, mullahs and imams, to give up and surrender? Will a "Magic Bullet" do that? Will bigger bullets do that? What are we going to have to do? Nuke every mountain?

They have been fighting invaders for about 5,000 years, are we willing to exterminate them to the last soldier...to win? We see that if we kill one soldier...two take his place tomorrow...coming from Pakistan and what-is-it -stans all around the country...and even traitors have come from the US to fight against our troops. I feel like that reporter the other day, yelling to Obama..."Can we win?" America is still waiting for him to answer. Are you?

No, I am not running for office, and am down off my soap-box for now!

Maverick223

July 13, 2010, 11:59 PM

^ Overall that was a pretty decent speech...I even read part of it. :p

Zack

July 14, 2010, 12:27 AM

A Battle Rifle is a rifle that you cannot afford to practice with. Yup.

To the anti's any rifle that is "black" is a "evil black rifle" which is define to them as a "battle rifle" But a true one is full auto :)

Jefferson Herb

July 14, 2010, 02:30 AM

Battle Rifle - A Rifle that you have,and can shoot well,causes soiled clothing to those on the recieving end. Not everyone can shoot a larger cal rifle well,and if they can not for long. I was a snipe in USN [engine room]and our battle rifle was a 5in 54.
That being said,our forfathers used what they brung,or picked up from someone who had no use for it anymore.If you use it well,I don't want it pointed at me.

C-grunt

July 14, 2010, 08:04 AM

Moving into Afghanistan...the insurgents have moved from house to house fights out into the fields and mountains. They learned against the Russians, in another 10 year war (the Russians gave up and quit) to hide in the hills and snipe. A recent video showed a platoon tied down and hiding from a single sniper that was shooting from beyond the maximum capability of the M4's. In a situation like that, all the troops can do is call in for back up! Which resulted in a missile strike that killed helpless civilians. Would a few 7.62's have helped in that situation..in my opinion - yes! Oh, well.

In that video, the marines werent unable to lay down fire because the M4 was out of range. They didnt know where the sniper was in that huge long treeline. Its really hard to effectively suppress and kill an enemy hiding in a couple hundred yards of treeline and ou dont know where he is.

dougw47

July 14, 2010, 12:34 PM

^ Overall that was a pretty decent speech...I even read part of it.

Thanks! I was on a spell last night...and I love you too! Seriously, I read your posts and agree with/accept 80% of them. I am not perfect and neither is anyone else in this world. I have an opinion on most subjects, but that does not mean I am always right! I was concerned that the Mod's would delete my long-winded post.

I like this board very much, and hope we can all get along.

dougw47

July 14, 2010, 12:37 PM

"In that video, the marines werent unable to lay down fire because the M4 was out of range. They didnt know where the sniper was in that huge long treeline. Its really hard to effectively suppress and kill an enemy hiding in a couple hundred yards of treeline and (y)ou dont know where he is."

That was the point I was trying to make. Counter-sniper work is very specialized and requires a bit more than pray and spray until you are out of ammo.

Cosmoline

July 14, 2010, 12:42 PM

Didn't we have a huge thread on this topic last year?

Yes, yes we did

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=489988

It seems the term was not used until fairly recently, as a way of distinguishing between auto feeders in full powered cartridges such as 7.62 NATO and those "assault rifles" in 5.56 and similar intermediate rounds. Prior to that, there was really no need for the term. The term also appears to have its roots in civilian gun sales, not in the military.

It was then retroactively applied to Mosins, Mausers, Enfields, and so on. But if the term is going to be applied that broadly we may as well not use it at all. Bolt action surplus covers that ground well enough.

Maverick223

July 14, 2010, 01:50 PM

I am not perfect and neither is anyone else in this world...I like this board very much, and hope we can all get along.Doug, I was just giving you a hard time. I actually read the post in its entirety, and it really was a good speech (though it really did seem that you were trying to sell something/running for office). I believe the mods pay more attention to content rather than length, so I don't believe your post is going anywhere.

:)

C-grunt

July 14, 2010, 05:23 PM

"In that video, the marines werent unable to lay down fire because the M4 was out of range. They didnt know where the sniper was in that huge long treeline. Its really hard to effectively suppress and kill an enemy hiding in a couple hundred yards of treeline and (y)ou dont know where he is."

That was the point I was trying to make. Counter-sniper work is very specialized and requires a bit more than pray and spray until you are out of ammo.
My point is that a 7.62 gun wouldnt have made a difference there either since they didnt know where the sniper was.

The M16/M4 is effective out to at least 500 meters. It might not hit like the hammer of Thor at that range, but it still will put a bullet through you. Even the standard 147grn 7.62 at that range is nothing to write home about.

Both rounds are traveling well under 2k FPS at that range and therefor outside of the velocity threshold to cause significant trauma outside the bullet track. The 7.62 does have the advantage of size and weight so it will do more damage.

But if you watch that video where the Marine gets shot by the sniper through the shoulder. After the initial shock of getting hit, he really isnt that bad and probably could still fight if really needed. He was shot by what was probably a full sized battle rifle round. He even kinda jokes and asks someone to take a picture.

Just shows that at these extended ranges, shot placement is even more crucial as much of the devestating wounding effects of a rifle are no longer there.

ol' scratch

July 14, 2010, 05:38 PM

So given the fact that a battle rifle shoots a full power cartridge, wouldn't an AR-10 be a 'battle' rifle?

It seems that weight is the only thing that distinguishes a battle rifle, from an assault rifle.

The terms 'assault' rifle and 'battle' rifle have always troubled me. Battle rifle seems more socially acceptable. I even read where someone wrote the M1 Garand WAS an assault rifle becase their was an experimental version-The T20 that took a detachable BAR magazine and had a select fire switch.

I'm with a few other posts. A rifle, is a rifle, is a rifle....

SSN Vet

July 14, 2010, 11:34 PM

my personal definition (which I just made up ;) )

a battle rifle is one that can...

1. can drop a bull at 500 yds.

&

2. if turned upside down and used as a club, can drop the same bull at 5 ft.

docsleepy

July 15, 2010, 12:44 AM

I went to an Appleseed saturday instruction recently, after a year of learning something about benchrest shooting with a bolt action (.223 and then 6PPC).

Wow. what a different mindset. AFter struggling all day long with a balky bolt action .22LR (scope even fell off once!) I had a completely new understanding of what rifle you wanted to carry into a BATTLE.

Sure, the usual definition of BATTLE rifle was the .30 cal rifle of WWII, but for my money, what I wanted was a:

semiautomatic!!!!!!!!
magazine fed (>10 rounds, please!!!)
centerfire!!!!
that would hold a scope for my tired old eyes,
and with the RIGHT STOCK LENGTH so I could SEE something through that scope

so I went and put in an order for what YOU already own -- an AR15 style rifle. Congrats to you! It should arrive within a week. Got a great deal as the prices seem to be tumbling, and I already have all the reloading equipt for .223 from my benchrest exploits.

Have fun with your AR15!

(Oh, and that was a GREAT soapbox about Afghanistan. I hate to see our boy's blood go for little, but you may be completely correct in the long run. )

Ignition Override

July 15, 2010, 01:02 AM

Tirod:

Your comment at the bottom (page 1) was "...threw down his jammomatic M4 and grabbed an AK...".

Had a chat with an unfamiliar coworker (based up north). He was in Army Special forces during Desert Storm.
I am still a bit of a novice with guns, by the way: nothing that can begin to compare with you guys/gals.

Anyway, Rick ***** told me that their issued rifles were not reliable and they had to pick up AKs in Iraq. The shuttle ride to the hotel at Newark Airport was very short and just after learning about his earlier background, had no time to let him elaborate on the scenarios.
Can try to get his cell phone # in a few days (from another coworker) if somebody wants to reach him for clarification of his operations in Desert Storm and reasons for his selections of rifles.

dougw47

July 15, 2010, 02:11 AM

"Doug, I was just giving you a hard time. I actually read the post in its entirety, and it really was a good speech (though it really did seem that you were trying to sell something/running for office). I believe the mods pay more attention to content rather than length, so I don't believe your post is going anywhere."

I have been stewing over the situation since a couple of young men I taught in 6th grade Sunday School graduated school and have now set foot in the Sand Box. Seems people that don't know anyone in the war, tend not to get personally involved or interested. Oh, well.

On the battle rifle issue, I started out with the M1 Garand, played with the 14 for a brief time and saw the 16 come in while I was in ROTC. They were guns, I liked each for different reasons. I might have charged my mind as The ARMY and I were going to win the war in Viet Nam...til a car wreck and three broken vertebrae sent me back to the silly-villian world. Probably a good thing since 2/3rds of my graduating ROTC class in 1965...did not make it back.

Always on the outside (wannabe) I read and thought a lot.

I don't know what the answer is for the M16/M4 rifle is...is it a bigger cartridge? Possibly, looks good on paper...Lord! What an expense to change over! It just does not seem to me that the army will trash all those 5.56's.

Is a bigger rifle (7.62) the magic answer? How many missions do the troops go on where they never need an 800 yd rifle? Probably a lot!

In WWII, they had the 03a3, the Garand, the M1 Carbine, and the BAR in some groups. We seemed to fall into the mind-set that one rifle is all we need...but that is changing! We need to diversify in my opinion.

Hitler waited too late to bring in the semi-auto assault rifle...depending on the Mausers far too long, when we had them out-gunned with the Garand.

We know the military brass are slow to change, that is a fact. They changed to the Stoner rifle in the middle of the war...will they do it again?

How long, with today's reduced factory production, would it take to produce 100,000 new rifles of some as-of-yet unknown design...with 10,000,000 new cartridges? And get them in the hands of the troops, and familiarized?

I have lots of questions and I am looking for reasonable answers. What next?

Another long post...apologies, I am just so darned passionate about this!

stinger 327

July 15, 2010, 02:17 AM

For a battle rifle what is the preferred sight? an open or peep sight for very fast target acquisition or a scope where you can reach out further and touch someone but takes longer to site in target:confused:?

Maverick223

July 15, 2010, 02:34 AM

How long, with today's reduced factory production, would it take to produce 100,000 new rifles of some as-of-yet unknown design...with 10,000,000 new cartridges?Can we please give the poor boys more than 100rnds of ammo each? ;)

For a battle rifle what is the preferred sight? an open or peep sight for very fast target acquisition or a scope where you can reach out further and touch someone but takes longer to site in targetThey all have advantages. Open sites are quicker (express type faster yet), but are less accurate. Apertures are more accurate, and still quick, but IME tend to perform poorly in low light conditions. Red-dot style optics are faster for most folks, but are electronic so they are more prone to breakage and require batteries (mostly a non-issue because the military replaces the batteries somewhat frequently), more importantly they can exhibit "flare" (or be too dim) and they are worse for someone with astigmatism (like myself). Traditional optics with low power, variable magnification are great at all ranges, but are somewhat more prone to breakage than other types of equipment (though optics have improved greatly in the past few decades). Personally I would choose a rugged low-magnification optic (like a NF), with BUIS (aperture) just in case.

:)

stinger 327

July 15, 2010, 02:40 AM

Can we please give the poor boys more than 100rnds of ammo each? ;)

They all have advantages. Open sites are quicker (express type faster yet), but are less accurate. Apertures are more accurate, and still quick, but IME tend to perform poorly in low light conditions. Red-dot style optics are faster for most folks, but are electronic so they are more prone to breakage and require batteries (mostly a non-issue because the military replaces the batteries somewhat frequently), more importantly they can exhibit "flare" (or be too dim) and they are worse for someone with astigmatism (like myself). Traditional optics with low power, variable magnification are great at all ranges, but are somewhat more prone to breakage than other types of equipment (though optics have improved greatly in the past few decades). Personally I would choose a rugged low-magnification optic (like a NF), with BUIS (aperture) just in case.

:)
Also whenever you add a scope to a rifle it makes it that much bulkier or less handy/easy to handle climb, crawl etc.
Probably scopes are alot more prone and sensitive to damage.

Maverick223

July 15, 2010, 03:09 AM

Also whenever you add a scope to a rifle it makes it that much bulkier or less handy/easy to handle climb, crawl etc.Playing devils advocate here, but is it really any worse than an Aimpoint, or [gasp] a ACOG (which is technically a scope, and a darn good one)?

Probably scopes are alot more prone and sensitive to damage.Not nearly as bad as they were in the not-too-distant past. Case in point: ACOG, or NF, or S&B. In fact any scope with a robust tube design, solid internals, and etched reticle will hold up pretty darn good, some better than the rifles they are placed on IMO.

:)

Tirod

July 15, 2010, 10:08 AM

Pinning down a casual acquaintance's report on the unreliability of the M16 is like nailing jelly to the wall. The perpetrators of this lie continue to pop up and spread their misinformation secure in the knowledge they can't be tracked down and called on the details - which should have been in the unit's afteraction report, documented. Unit, date, time, details, etc are generally the last things you can get from these "spec ops experts" because they weren't there and they are talking out their wazoo.

The NY Times has another article on it from an reporter traveling with Marines in the poppy fields of Afghanistan, he and most of the 100 soldiers he's interviewed say it's BS the gun doesn't work. Check the Firearms blog for today and read it, along with the link to the military.com Fit up comments.

22 years in the Reserves and a veteran, many soldiers bitch about stuff, their weapon being just one of dozens of subjects they actually have little expertise with. They qualify once a year, and carry it in the field, but they aren't combat arms 10 to 1. It's not their primary tool, it's another encumbrance like the M17 protective mask. They bitch about subjects to those they know can't question their knowledge.

I don't put any credence in "I met a friend of a friend" reports. Name, unit, date, commanding officer, and guess what, document number on the afteraction report typed for the unit history that was forwarded up the chain. OR it's BS, just like a lot of the other "reports" by "ex Vietnam LRRP/SEALS/Special Forces/Rangers" who have got caught lying, weren't even there, and were found to be posers.

It's been going on for 30 years, now it's "Desert Storm" vets. They don't care who they dishonor.

PS this has nothing to do with the 1968 time frame and the bungled issue of M16's to our troops. That's an unfortunate fact.

stinger 327

July 15, 2010, 11:20 AM

Is a Mini-14 considered a battle rifle? Same caliber as AR.:confused:

Art Eatman

July 15, 2010, 02:46 PM

stinger, go back to Page 1, when the thread was still on-topic.

If you enjoyed reading about "What is the definition of a battle rifle?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!